European
Union legislation on the publication of information
relating to the beneficiaries of European agricultural
funds is partially invalid

The obligation
to publish the names of natural persons who are
beneficiaries of such aid and the exact amounts which they
have received constitutes, with regard to the objective of
transparency, a disproportionate measure

EU law on the
financing of expenditure coming under the common
agricultural policy provides that Member States are to
ensure the annual ex-post publication of the names
of beneficiaries of the European Agricultural Guarantee
Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD) and of the amounts received by each
beneficiary under each of those Funds1.

The website of
the German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food
(‘the Bundesanstalt’) makes available to the
public the names of beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF and
the EAFRD, the place in which those beneficiaries are
established or reside and the postcode of that place, in
addition to the annual amounts received. This site also has
a search tool.

Volker und
Markus Schecke GbR, an agricultural firm (Case C-92/09),
and Hartmut Eifert, a full-time farmer (Case C-93/09),
applied, for the financial year 2008, to the competent
local authorities for funds from the EAGF or the EAFRD.
Their respective applications were approved by decisions of
December 2008.

In their
respective actions, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and
Hartmut Eifert ask the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative
Court) Wiesbaden (Germany) to require the Landof Hesse not to publish the data relating to them.
As it takes the view that the European Union rules which
impose on the Bundesanstalt the obligation to publish those
data amount to an unjustified interference with the
fundamental right to the protection of personal data, the
national court has requested the Court of Justice to
examine the validity of those rules.

The Court
notes, first, that the right to respect for private life
with regard to the processing of personal data, which is
recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, concerns any information relating to an
identified or identifiable individual and, second, that the
limitations which may lawfully be imposed on the right to
the protection of personal data correspond to those which
are tolerated under the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.

The Court then
goes on to note that publication on a website of data
naming the beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid and
indicating the precise amounts received by them
constitutes, by reason of the fact that those data become
available to third parties, an interference with the right
of those beneficiaries to respect for their private life,
in general, and to the protection of their personal data,
in particular. In order to be justified, such interference
must be provided for by law, must respect the essence of
those rights and, subject to compliance with the principle
of proportionality, must be necessary and genuinely meet
objectives of general interest recognised by the European
Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of
others. Moreover, derogations and limitations in relation
to the protection of personal data may apply only in so far
as they are strictly necessary.

1Council
Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L
209, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No
1437/2007 of 26 November 2007 (OJ 2007 L 322, p. 1), and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008
laying down detailed rules for the application of
Regulation No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of
information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from
the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(OJ 2008 L 76, p. 28).

In this
context, the Court takes the view that, while it is true
that in a democratic society taxpayers have a right to be
kept informed of the use made of public funds, the fact
none the less remains that the striking of a proper balance
between the various interests involved made it necessary
for the institutions concerned, before adopting the
disputed provisions, to ascertain whether publication via a
single freely consultable website in each Member State of
data naming each of the beneficiaries concerned and the
precise amounts received by each of them from the EAGF and
the EAFRD – with no distinction being drawn according
to the duration, frequency or nature and amount of the aid
received – did not go beyond what was necessary for
achieving the legitimate aims pursued. As far as natural
persons benefiting from aid under the EAGF and the EAFRD
are concerned, however, it does not appear that the Council
and the Commission sought to strike such a
balance.

The Court
accordingly concludes that, by imposing an obligation to
publish personal data relating to each natural person who
was a beneficiary of aid under the EAGF and the EAFRD
without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria
such as the periods during which those persons received
such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and
amount thereof, the Council and the Commission exceeded the
limits imposed by compliance with the principle of
proportionality. To that extent, it is thus necessary to
declare invalid certain provisions of Regulation No
1290/2005 and to declare Regulation No 259/2008 invalid in
its entirety.

In view of the
large number of publications which have taken place in the
Member States on the basis of rules which were regarded as
being valid, the Court accepts that the invalidity of
those provisions which has thus been established cannot
allow any action to be brought to challenge the effects of
the publication of the lists of beneficiaries of EAGF
and EAFRD aid carried out by the national authorities
during the period prior to the date on which the judgment
in the present cases is delivered.

NOTE:A
reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and
tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been
brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of
Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or
the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice
does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national
court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with
the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar
issue is raised.

Unofficial
document for media use, not binding on the Court of
Justice.

Thefull
textof the judgment
is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.